Abstract
Objective: To compare the ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence rates in mechanically ventilated patients according to the type of endotracheal suctioning (closed versus open). Setting: The Neurosurgery Intensive Care Unit of the Grenoble University Hospital, France. Design: A prospective randomised study performed after a 6-month period of nursing personnel training. Patients: One hundred four consecutive patients needing mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h were randomised into two groups. To be eligible, patients had to have no active infection or respiratory affection in their passes. In the Stericath group (S + , n = 54), patients were not disconnected from the ventilator during suctioning. The others were routinely managed (S–, n = 50). In both groups patterns of frequency and duration of suctioning were performed according to a standardised protocol.¶Measurements: The non-adjusted incidence rate of VAP was lower for S + than for S– (7.32 versus15.89 per 1000 patient-days, p = 0.07). Multivariate analysis performed using the Cox model showed an adjusted risk of VAP 3.5 times higher in S– (95 %Cl: 11.00–12.33). The risk being 4.3 higher in patients receiving gastric acid secretion inhibitors (1.08–16.82). In non-censored cases (n = 76) length of ICU stay increased by an average of 16.8 days when VAP was present (p = 0.0008). No adverse effect due to Stericath use was noted and volume of tracheal aspirate was similar between groups (p = 0.178). Conclusion: The use of Stericath reduced the incidence rate of VAP without demonstrating any adverse effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received: 23 August 1999/Final revision received: 17 April 2000 Accepted: 26 April 2000
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Combes, P., Fauvage, B. & Oleyer, C. Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a prospective randomised evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system. Intensive Care Med 26, 878–882 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s001340051276
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001340051276